Contents

Talk:Radcliffe Telescope

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. South Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Radcliffe Telescope appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Radcliffe Telescope was the largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere when it was completed in 1948? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Radcliffe Telescope.

The result was: promotedbyRjjiii talk 14:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Radcliffe Telescope was the largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere when it was completed in 1948?

• Source: https://www.saao.ac.za/about/history/

http://www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=915

• • Reviewed:

Created by Clearfrienda (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

C F A 💬 01:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Although this was presented to DYK as a new article, it's an exact copy-paste of User:Modest Genius/Radcliffe Telescope [1]. CFA simply removed my in-text notes and the empty sections before putting it in article space. Although I hadn't worked on the draft for years, I would have appreciated at least being notified if someone wanted to take it over themselves. Copying without attribution violates WP:CWW - the page should have been moved, not copy-pasted, to preserve the edit history - so this will require a WP:HISTMERGE. The reason I didn't publish the draft myself is it's a woefully incomplete coverage of the topic. There's no mention of Grubb Parsons or the problems that were experienced during construction. My history section had only got to the 1960s, so omits the takeover by SAAO, move to Sutherland. There's nothing about the optical and mechanical designs, the current instrumentation, or current operations. Nor is there any discussion of the research performed using the telescope, historically and currently. @CFA: why did you copy material from another editor's userspace without attribution, present it as your own, and use it to gain a DYK credit? Modest Genius ^talk 09:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @TheNuggeteer:, who reviewed the DYK nom. Modest Genius ^talk 09:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Modest Genius See the second revision, it removes some of the comments which you used in the draft, clear copy. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Modest Genius And the third revision also. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Modest Genius: Yes, this is copied from a user space draft. I was looking for information on Radcliffe Observatory because I had just read something on it and was wondering if I could bring the article to GA. Then I found your draft by searching which I thought had a better chance of making it to GA. I wasn’t sure about the policy on moving someone else’s abandoned user space draft so I just copied it. I didn’t really think through the DYK nomination. I still hope to bring it to GA if that’s something you’re interested in. I’m sorry about this; I should’ve just waited and left you a message. I think the best option here is to G7 this and move the draft in if you’re okay with that. A history merge would also work. C F A 💬 12:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA: Thank you for the constructive response. I'll be happy to collaborate on improving the article.

There is no WP:OWNership of text in article space, but subpages in user space are conventionally not copy-pasted elsewhere without notification. WP:STALEDRAFT discourages publishing someone else's user space draft unless "the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing", neither of which applied. Yes it was an old draft, but I'm a currently active user who would have been happy to discuss the draft. We could have brought it up to a better standard before publishing and linking to it from the Main Page. But that's water under the bridge at this point.

Anyway, I don't think deletion is a good idea, that would just confuse things further. I have instead requested a history merge, using the template at the top of this talk page. We can discuss what parts of the article to work on next once that merge has been done. Modest Genius ^talk 18:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Again, very sorry for the confusion. Let me know when you're interested in starting. C F A 💬 23:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge complete. For the record, the {{histmerge}} tag should ideally be placed on the article itself, mainly for ease of getting links etc. (i.e. not the end of the world but it's more convenient). Primefac (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Primefac, looks good. Sorry for putting the template in the wrong place! Modest Genius ^talk 15:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]